ERIC EJ1122058: What Do Science Teacher Candidates Know about Measuring Instruments and Units?

2016·0.59 MB·English

by  ERIC

Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, Issue 64, 2016, 287-306
What Do Science Teacher Candidates Know About
Measuring Instruments and Units?

Yasemin HACIOGLU
Ummu Gulsum DURUKAN
Cigdem SAHIN

Suggested Citation:
Hacioglu, Y., Durukan, U. G. & Sahin, C. (2016). What do science teacher candidates
know about measuring instruments and units? Eurasian Journal of Educational
Research, 64, 287-306
http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2016.64.16

Abstract
Problem Statement: It is unknown how Science Teacher Candidates (STCs)
recognize measuring instruments and indicate units that STCs will teach
to their students, which they will constantly come across when they
become teachers. Determining this case is important because it is believed
that the results of this study will support the implementations that
provide them with the ability to improve their measuring skills during
their undergraduate programs.
Purpose of the Study: The aim of this study is to determine how knowledge
of STCs, in regard to measuring instruments and the units of qualities
measured by these instruments, change according to their grades.
Method: The sample of this study, which was carried out according to
cross-sectional research methodology, was comprised of 259 STCs
(freshmen [N = 58], sophomores [N = 68], juniors [N = 67], and seniors [N
= 66]) at the department of elementary science teacher education in the
faculty of education of a state university. The Measuring Instruments and
Units Questionnaire (MIUQ), which is comprised of 17 measuring
instruments that take place in science education programs and textbooks

 A preliminary report of this study was presented at the 1st Eurasian Educational Research
(EJER) Congress in Istanbul, Turkey (24–26 April 2014).
 Corresponding author: Res. Assist. Yasemin HACIOGLU, Giresun University,
[email protected]
 Res. Assist. Ummu Gulsum DURUKAN, Giresun University, [email protected]
4Assist. Prof. Dr. Cigdem SAHIN, Giresun University, [email protected]

288 Yasemin Hacioglu, Ummu Gulsum Durukan & Cigdem Sahin
for primary schools and their units, was used as a data collection tool in
the study. The data gathered from the study was analyzed through
content analysis.
Findings: Ninety-five percent of senior STCs answered correctly Celsius
(oC) and Kelvin as units of temperature. Sixty-one percent of sophomore
STCs answered heat as the quality measured by the calorimeter. Eighty-
four percent of junior STCs did not provide an answer for the unit of heat.
However, 64% of freshmen STCs stated weight as the quality measured by
the bascule; 60% of them stated kg as the unit of weight. Ninety-one
percent of junior, 82% of senior, 69% of freshmen, and 60% of sophomore
STCs did not answer the quality measured by the manometer. Seventy-
nine percent of freshmen and 72% of junior STCs did not answer the unit
of quality measured by the graduated cylinder. Five percent of senior and
3% of sophomore STCs stated that the “V” symbol is the unit of speed.
Conclusions and Recommendations: In the study, it was determined that
STCs are misinformed about the qualities measured by measuring
instruments, and they lack knowledge regarding the units of measured
qualities. It is concluded that their knowledge of measuring instruments
and units does not increase parallel to their grades.
Key words: Science education, measuring instrument, measuring quality,
unit, science teacher candidate, cross-sectional research.
Introduction
“Temel decides to carry out an experiment with a xenopsylla. First, he breaks
one of the legs of the xenopsylla and orders it;
- Jump!
The xenopsylla jumps. Temel breaks the other leg of the xenopsylla and orders;
- Jump xenopsylla!
The xenopsylla jumps again. Then, Temel breaks all the legs of the xenopsylla
and orders;
-Jump xenopsylla!
The xenopsylla does not jump this time. Temel orders it to jump again, but the
xenopsylla does not move and Temel concludes that;
The xenopsylla that loses one leg jumps, the xenopsylla that loses two legs
jumps, but the xenopsylla that loses all legs goes deaf.”
Just as in the anecdote above, individuals who are not able to use their science
process skills are likely to come to wrong conclusions. In science education, students’
science process skills are quite important in order for them to gather scientific
information. Thus, teaching them how to catch a fish instead of just handing one over
is a necessary upskill.
Measuring is a science process skill that takes place among the basic skills
(Lancour, 2008; Padilla, 1990). Measuring is an important skill for an individual when
learning the differences among concepts of science as well as becoming a scientific
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 289

literate. Measuring is the act of giving meaning to quantitative observations by
comparing them with the set standards (Arthur, 1993).
Measuring starts by determining the quality and quantity that will be measured
and selecting a suitable measuring instrument and measuring unit (Beichner &
Serway, 2000). In this regard to upskill in measuring, an individual first needs to
know which quality is to be measured, by which measuring instrument, and how
they are reflected as a unit (Buxton & Provenzo, 2007; Carin & Bass, 2001). If this is
not known, it is inevitable that individuals who measure the qualities that need to be
measured will use the wrong measuring instruments, or they will reflect the
measured quality through the wrong unit even if they have measured it with the
right measuring instrument.
Individuals formally learn first-time upskill in measuring during their pre-school
education (Klahr, 2000). Implementations for upskilling in measuring and improving
these skills take place in other educational programs as well (Maral, Oguz-Unver &
Yurumezoglu, 2012). Research indicates that primary school students (Koray,
Ozdemir & Tatar, 2005), secondary school students (Anilan, 2014; Yildirim & Ilhan,
2007; Yucel, Secken & Morgil, 2001), and university students (Cildir, 2012; Secken,
Yucel & Morgil, 2002) have deficiencies when measuring and reflecting the measured
qualities by unit. Hence, it is quite important to introduce and teach measuring
instruments and units of the qualities to individuals. There is no doubt that teachers
have an important mission and responsibility regarding students’ upskill in
measuring as well as teaching units. Teachers should exhibit exemplary behavior to
their students because model teachers support students’ learning (Germann, Aram &
Burke, 1996). When teachers retain wrong information, it is inevitable that they will
share it with their students by carrying it to their learning environments (Emrahoglu
& Ozturk, 2009). When this situation is taken into account, the determination of
STCs’ knowledge regarding measuring instruments, as well as the units of the
qualities that are measured by these instruments, is important. It is believed that the
results of this study will support the implementations that provide STCs the ability
to improve their measuring skills during their undergraduate programs. STCs take
several laboratory, science, and science teaching courses during their undergraduate
programs (URL, 2016). Nevertheless, it is unknown how STCs recognize measuring
instruments and indicate the units they will teach to their students when they
become teachers. A question to be considered is, “What do STCs know about
measuring instruments and units, and how does this knowledge of STCs change
according to different grades?” It is believed that the results of this study will
emphasize the teaching of measuring instruments and unitize the measured quality
according to the system international of units.
The aim of this study is to determine how STCs’ knowledge regarding measuring
instruments and units of the qualities are measured, as well as how these
instruments change according to their grades.
290 Yasemin Hacioglu, Ummu Gulsum Durukan & Cigdem Sahin
Method
Research Design
This study was carried out according to cross-sectional research methodology.
Cross-sectional research is a process in which instant information is gained about the
sample in a certain period of time. In cross-sectional research, the sample is
generated by groups chosen simultaneously from a population (Cohen, Manion &
Morrison, 2007; Sahin, 2014).
Research Group
The study group consisted of 259 STCs (freshmen [N = 58], sophomores [N = 68],
juniors [N = 67], and seniors [N = 66]) in the elementary science teacher department
of the education faculty at a state university.
Research Instrument and Procedure
The Measuring Instruments and Units Questionnaire (MIUQ) was used as a data
collection tool. While developing the MIUQ, the course books approved by the
Ministry of National Education—and used for science courses of fifth to eighth
graders in elementary school in 2013–2014 as well as the elementary school science
teaching program—were analyzed. Content of the MIUQ, which consists of
measuring instruments and units, was determined from the science course books,
according to these analyses (MNE Comission, 2012; MNE Comission, 2013a; MNE
Comission, 2013b; Tunc, Bakar, Basdag, Ipek, Bagci, Gursoy Koroglu, Yoruk & Keles,
2012). In the MIUQ, 17 measuring instruments were listed in the column of a table.
The STCs requested that the quality measured by the measuring instrument and the
units of that measured quality be stated. The views of three science education experts
were consulted for validity of the MIUQ. Before the MIUQ was applied, the pilot
study was carried out with 10 STCs.
Data Analysis
Data gathered from the MIUQ was analyzed contently. The data was coded as
Correct (T), Alternative Concept (AC), False (F), Concept (C), Unit (U), Symbol (S),
Unrelated (Ur), and No Comment (NC), and the frequency of code usage was
determined. To provide the validity of the codes, the researchers decided these codes
by consensus. To correctly compare according to the STCs’ grades, the percentage
values were calculated according to the frequency of usage. While calculating the
percentage values, the number of STCs who participated in the study in each grade
was taken into account. The explanations of the codes are presented in Table 1..
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 291

Table 1.
Codes in the Data Analysis, Content, and Quoted Statements
Quoted statements that describe the
Codes Content
coding
Correct (C) The answers are “An equal-arm balance scale is the
scientifically correct. measuring instrument used to measure
mass.”
“The unit of mass is g.”
Alternative The answers are not “A thermometer is used to measure heat.”
Concept (AC) accepted scientifically and “The unit of temperature is the joule.”
define another concept
False (F) Answers with no scientific “The unit of quality measured with a
meaning dynamometer is kg/m.s2.”
Concept (C) The statement of the “A voltmeter measures voltage.”
concept of the measured
quality
Unit (U) Expresses the measured “A calorimeter measures calories.”
quality with a unit
Symbol (S) Expresses the unit of the “The unit of quality measured by a
measured quality by the calorimeter is Q.”
symbol of the quality
Unrelated (Ur) The definitions do not “Beakers are used to measure while the
have any relation to the solution is prepared in the laboratory.”
quality and answers as the
repetition of the question
No Comment The situation that no
(NC) comment exists

Findings
Findings were presented by taking into account the measuring instruments
related to concept dualities, which learners sometimes confuse with each other in the
tables. For example, learners often confuse heat-temperature concepts, so findings
related to the thermometer and calorimeter are presented together in Table 2.
292 Yasemin Hacioglu, Ummu Gulsum Durukan & Cigdem Sahin
Table 2.
Findings related to the Thermometer and Calorimeter
Percent (%) Percent (%)
MI Codes Quality Codes Units
G1 G2 G3 G4 G1 G2 G3 G4
C Temperature T oC
95 97 100 86 84 43 85 95
er
et AC Heat 2 3 - 2 K 29 6 27 21
m
o NC 3 - - 12 AC J - - 4 -
m Cal - 1 - -
her S Temperature
T 3 - 1 -
(T)
NC 12 56 10 5
T Heat 34 44 61 38 T cal , kcal 12 13 46 32
Energy 12 6 9 14 J , kJ 19 3 15 18
AC Temperature 5 1 3 - AC oC 5 - 1 2
er Nutritional K
met value 5 5 1 4 2 - - -
ori Br Calorie 10 24 9 14 cal/g.oC - - 4 -
Cal NC 33 19 16 32 S Heat(Q) 2 - - 2
F C/cal,
- - 10 2
K/cal, cal/g
NC 69 84 36 53
Table 2 shows that 100% of junior STCs answered temperature as the quality
measured by the thermometer. Ninety-five percent of senior STCs answered
correctly oC and Kelvin as the units of temperature. Sixty-one percent of junior STCs
answered heat as the quality measured by the calorimeter. Eighty-four percent of
sophomore STCs did not provide an answer for the unit of heat. Findings related to
the dynamometer, hand scale, equal-arm balance scale, and bascule are presented in
Table 3.
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 293

Table 3.
Findings related to the Dynamometer, Hand Scale, Equal-Arm Balance Scale, and Bascule
Percent (%) Percent (%)
MI Codes Quality Codes Unit
G1 G2 G3 G4 G1 G2 G3 G4
C Weight 26 32 72 41 T N, kg.m/s2 21 9 73 70
dyn,
Force 24 16 19 47 2 - 13 6
g.cm/s2, gF
AC Pressure 3 21 6 2 AC g, kg 21 4 18 17
Mass 2 - 4 8 m/s, m/s2 2 3 - -
er Power 9 - 1 - N.m , J 2 - - 2
met Heat - 1 - - Watt 3 - - -
mo NC 38 32 1 3 S Force (F) 3 - 1 -
na Weight (G) - 1 1 2
y
D Pressure (P) - 1 1 2
F kg/s,
kg/m.s,
- - 10 12
g.cm/s,
kg/m.s2
NC 50 75 12 15
C Weight 10 21 31 26 T N, kg.m/s2 - 1 13 11
Hand scale ANCC FMoarscse 6-2 72 3-4 81 5111 6 5318 5 AS C dgM y,a nks gs, ,g( mtFo )n -95 0 -2- 6 17- 9 273 0
NC 26 78 34 38
D Weight 64 32 52 53 T N , gF - - 7 8
AC Mass 12 40 39 23 AC g 28 3 36 30
e Pressure - - - 2 kg 60 22 57 50
ul
c NC 24 43 9 9 Pa - - - 2
s
Ba ml , cm3 - - 3 -
S Mass (m) 2 - - 2
NC 31 78 30 38
C Mass 10 25 66 48 T g 52 18 70 52
m ale AC Weight 50 31 24 32 kg 22 16 46 47
-arualnce sc UNrC 19 2199 91 5 115 5 AC mN g 1- 0 71 -7 3-
Eqala S Mass (m) - - 3 5
b
NC 26 66 12 21
Table 3 shows that 72% of junior STCs answered weight as the quality measured
by the dynamometer. Seventy percent of senior STCs answered “N” or kg.m/s2, and
21% of freshmen STCs stated g or kg as units of weight. Sixty-seven percent of
freshmen STCs answered force as the quality measured by the hand scale. Ninety
percent of freshmen STCs stated g, kg, or ton as units of weight. Similarly, 79% of
junior and 70% of senior STCs stated g, kg, or ton as units of weight in the AC code.
Seventy-eight percent of sophomore STCs did not provide an answer. Sixty-six
percent of junior STCs answered mass, and 50% of freshmen STCs stated weight as
the quality measured by the equal-arm balance scale. However, 52% of freshmen
STCs stated g as the unit of mass. However, 64% of freshmen STCs stated weight as
the quality measured by the bascule, and 60% stated kg as the unit of weight.
Likewise, 57% of junior and 50% of senior STCs stated kg as the unit of weight in the
AC code. Findings related to the ampere meter, resistivity meter, and voltmeter is
presented in Table 4.
294 Yasemin Hacioglu, Ummu Gulsum Durukan & Cigdem Sahin
Table 4.
Findings related to the Ampere Meter, Resistivity Meter, and Voltmeter
Percent (%) Percent (%)
MI Codes Quality Codes Unit
G1 G2 G3 G4 G1 G2 G3 G4
C Current 71 75 85 88 T A 31 25 54 44
AC Voltage 5 3 - - mA 3 1 1 -
er Pressure 2 - 4 2 kA 2 - - -
et
m Lux - 3 - - AC Ohm 5 - 9 5
e
er Electrical S Current (I)
mp Power - - 1 - 2 4 12 12
A
U Ampere 10 15 6 2 NC 62 68 24 35
NC 12 4 3 9
C Voltage 24 47 55 52 T V 34 26 58 42
AC Current 24 25 6 9 Ohm.A - - 1 -
Resistance 10 4 4 3 C Voltage - 1 4 8
Electrical AC Ohm
r power 9 3 1 - 2 - - -
e
met Electrical Watt,
olt energy 7 - 1 2 kWatt 7 1 1 2
V
Light Joule
intensity - 3 - - - - 1 -
U Volt 16 15 18 12 NC 62 68 31 44
NC 10 3 13 23
C Resistance 45 49 78 59 T Ohm, V/A 21 10 34 27
eter Electricity 5 4 3 2 AC Ampere - - 1 -
M Current 7 4 4 5 Volt - - 1 2
y AC
vit Voltage 3 - - 2 Resistance 5 4 4 14
sti S (R)
Resi U Ohm 2 - - - Current (I) - - 1 3
NC 38 44 15 33 NC 74 85 57 53

Table 4 shows that 88% of senior and 71% of freshmen STCs answered current as
the quality measured by the ampere meter. Forty-four percent of senior STCs
answered correctly “A” as the unit of current; 62% of freshmen did not provide an
answer. Fifty-five percent of junior and 52% of senior STCs answered
voltage/potential difference as the quality measured by the voltmeter; 68% of
sophomore and 62% of freshmen STCs did not answer the unit of current. Seventy-
eight percent of junior STCs answered correctly resistance as the quality measured by
the resistivity meter; 85% of sophomore and 74% of freshmen STCs did not answer
the unit of resistance. Findings related to the barometer and manometer are
presented in Table 5.
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 295

Table 5.
Findings related to the Barometer and Manometer
Percent (%) Percent (%)
MI Codes Quality Codes Unit
G1 G2 G3 G4 G1 G2 G3 G4
C Open-air T Atm
pressure 12 7 4 14 11 4 13 7
AC Gas
pressure
in a 3 - 4 - Bar 2 - 4 1
container
meter Gpraess sure 10 7 9 3 Bari - - - 1
aro Pressure 43 43 57 56 mmHg 4 - 1 2
B
Air flow - - 1 2 cmHg 1 1 2 -
Height of
mercury - - - 2 Pa 1 1 17 8
NC 31 43 24 24 AC N - - 1 -
S Pressure (P) 2 1 7 6
NC 39 61 29 41
C Gas T
pressure
in a 7 - 1 11 Atm 2 1 8 2
container
AC Air
pressure 7 1 3 2 Bar - - - 1
er
et Open-air
om pressure 7 - 18 2 mmHg 4 1 - -
n
Ma Pressure 10 3 13 3 cmHg 4 - 1 -
Liquid
pressure - 3 4 Pa - - 4 1
Ur - 1 - 2 AC N - - 1 -
NC 69 91 60 82 S Pressure(P) - - 2 2
NC 51 66 42 59
Table 5 shows that 57% of junior and 56% of senior STCs answered pressure as
the quality measured by the barometer in the AC code. Seventeen percent of junior
STCs answered correctly Pa as the unit of open-air pressure; 41% of senior STCs did
not provide an answer. Ninety-one percent of sophomore, 82% of senior, 69% of
freshmen, and 60% of junior STCs did not answer the quality measured by the
manometer. They also did not answer the unit of gas pressure in a container.
Findings related to the beaker and graduated cylinder are presented in Table 6.
296 Yasemin Hacioglu, Ummu Gulsum Durukan & Cigdem Sahin
Table 6.
Findings related to the Beaker and Graduated Cylinder
Percent (%) Co Percent (%)
MI Codes Quality de Unit
G1 G2 G3 G4 G1 G2 G3 G4
s
C Volume 14 6 48 26 T mL 24 21 58 39
AC Liquid
16 12 4 15 L 21 16 33 20
mass
Liquid
2 - - - cm3 3 - 9 5
weight
ker Hmeaitgtehrt of 7 - - 3 m3 2 - 4 5
a
Be NC 28 35 13 50 cc - - 1 -
A mm, cm 5 1 1 14
C g, kg 5 - 1 3
S Volume
3 - 1 3
(V)
NC 53 69 22 33
C Liquid T
2 6 28 11 mL 16 12 61 42
volume
Volume 10 4 24 15 L 10 4 33 24
Solid
- - - 2 cm3 2 4 13 11
volume
er
d AC Liquid
ylin mass 5 9 16 18 m3 2 1 4 5
c
d Liquid
e - - - 2 cc - - 1 -
at pressure
u
ad Ur 38 32 16 33 A g, kg - - - 3
Gr NC 45 49 15 20 C mm, cm 2 1 1 11
Pa - - - 2
S Volume
3 - 1 3
(V)
NC 72 79 15 26
Table 6 shows that 48% of junior STCs answered correctly volume as the quality
measured by the beaker; 58% and 33% answered correctly mL and “L” as the units of
volume. Not only did 50% of senior STCs not answer the quality measured by the
beaker, but 14% of them also stated mm or cm as the units of volume in the AC code.
Thirty-eight percent of freshmen STC answers regarding the quality measured by
graduated cylinder are in the Ur code. Also, 79% of sophomore and 72% of freshmen
STCs did not answer the unit of quality measured by the graduated cylinder.
Findings related to the speedometer are presented in Table 7.